Six men of God

out in the cold

this Christmas

 

Bruce Gardner

 

With a new baby, you do not have to tell most men to be gentle. The man will often be as gentle as a kitten, afraid to hurt this bundle of precious love. He may even shy away from the responsibility, at first, and have to be persuaded that it is okay for him to pick up this baby's fragile, wonderful new life.
     I often wonder about the love of Mary's partner, Joseph. He was told he would be the guardian, not the father, of Jesus. Despite this, he risked his life, fleeing from the wrath of Herod – all for love of a child that was not his. As he gazed at Jesus in astonished gentleness, duty became a labour of love.
     'Babies bring their love with them,' somone said to me the other day. And none more so than the prince of peace and God of love, who was born on this earth, not for himself, but for our good – a thought, this Christmas, that should inspire us to show Joseph's care to others, rather than Herod's cruelty.
This especially applies to church and community leaders.
     If leadership expresses itself intemperately, it may urge those with less sense of propriety to be nasty, even violent, just as stamping hastily on the accelerator can lead us to terrible consequences, unforeseen at first. If we indulge ourselves in hostile words, others may take it to endorse violence. Henry II's anger at Thomas Becket led his courtiers to interpret that as a death warrant. As W H Auden wrote, in 'Epitaph on a Tyrant': 'When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter/ And when he cried, the little children died in the streets'.
     Auden, as a homosexual, would have had great interest in the current debate on homosexuality and the right to have a religious wedding. With his awareness of the cruel effects of power, he might also have been dismayed by the way in which people express themselves over the issue. Hurts exists on both sides of the argument. Some experience pain because they yearn for their views to triumph and fear they will not succeed, while others suffer from opponents' intemperate or dismissive outbursts.
     Some Church of Scotland evangelicals may feel left out in the cold this Christmas, particularly those who, with their families, face the season of goodwill without ministerial salaries. They gave them up, resigning their charges amid tears, over the issue of homosexuals in ministry. 'Exemplary tolerance' in Britain, which John Cameron describes, does not extend to these people: violent, vilifying postings amongst scathing blog commentators are more reminiscent of Kristallnacht than gentlemanly debate.
     Now that the Scottish Government has waded in, in support of homosexuals' rights, we should realise that this is not a human rights issue on one side only. Every community tragedy, like any divorce, has more than one viewpoint. For the liberals, the single command to love their neighbour trumps all other considerations. It seems perfect, until one realises that evangelicals do not feel they are getting much neighbourly love at present. Evangelicals are good citizens who are compelled by biblical conscience: for them, the authority of the bible as a whole is at issue (eg Romans 1:18-27). Defending the bible as they see it (and as traditionally interpreted by the Kirk itself), evangelicals were suddenly defeated by voting majorities. Six clergy have, so far, fallen on their swords, bewildered by Kirk decisions. None of them hate homosexuals: they lack freedom of conscience to endorse homosexual acts before God.

 

     Six families may face Christmas without the sure resources all SR readers would wish. The ministers were not, of course, the poorest of the poor, but their want and uncertainty this Christmas will be no less real. Behind them, many evangelical ministers look ahead to 2012 and, as Scotland's bard put it, 'guess and fear'. The crisis, therefore, is a pastoral matter. To its credit, the Kirk has held meetings on a national scale to talk it all through. Yet thorny legal issues remain, which have to be addressed.
     What might occur nationally? First, the government, despite Catholic and other Christian reluctance, may satisfy human rights requirements with same-sex state weddings. At such weddings, too, clergy willing to participate in them may act as co-celebrants with the registrar, or as registrars in their own right, without requiring their denomination’s specific concurrence. (This would depend on being part of a denomination in which such co-celebration was not a disciplinary matter.) Second, it is obvious that, having allowed practising homosexuals into pulpits and given further evidence of its willingness to extend its provision, the Kirk seems likely to allow same-sex marriages by clergy soon. In that case, the homosexual community will have all the resources it needs to have its own religious weddings.
     What of Kirk ministers who, by conscience, cannot endorse such marriages or allow themselves to be forced into participating in them? At present, one is only exempt from prosecution under human rights laws if one works in a church that does not endorse same-sex marriage.
     The Kirk could try insulating dissenting clergy with suitable, specific legislation. If the Kirk legislated for a blanket sanction of such weddings, all protection from litigation would be removed, putting pressure on its dissenting clergy. It would be fine if homosexual lobbyists did not pursue individuals to force them into court over equality rights, but sadly, as in recent bed and breakfast cases, if it can occur, it will. Thus, if the Kirk is set on its current course, without protecting dissenters, exposing its ministers to litigation, it will be necessary for remaining dissenting evangelicals to start negotiating a realistic and just exit strategy from the Kirk.
     Is the national Kirk mature enough to accept that, in all divisions over conscience, the solutions must allow both sides to keep their dignity? If, tragically, the crisis ended with the Kirk acknowledging that its 80-year union of evangelicals and liberals was over, sundered by cultural change, then the Kirk would have to be ready to let evangelical congregations leave the Kirk, if resolved to do so, not only with their honour intact, but also their money and property. To inflict a crushing defeat, without regard for conscience, and force them to cede buildings they worked to maintain and bank accounts built up out of their pockets, so making them leave empty-handed, would risk seeming to rake in their wealth in a dubious – even cynical – windfall. Whatever Kirk rules are, if the Kirk has a heart, it must be fair.
     Looking at history, the jury is out on whether Scotland has sufficient maturity to deal with its divisions. If the Kirk, a national institution, cannot treat its disputes with wisest care, that will not be a good sign. It needs the judgement of Solomon for, whatever be decided for homosexuals, one should not oppress a large minority in trying to help a smaller one. In resolving this, if we must choose between Joseph's gentle courage and Herod's blundering, destructive power-politics, let us fervently pray for the former.

 

Bruce Gardner is a writer and commentator